Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.56.360 (2026)
Retail theft with special circumstances
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A person commits retail theft with special circumstances if he or she commits theft of property from a mercantile establishment with one of the following special circumstances:
(a) To facilitate the theft, the person leaves the mercantile establishment through a designated emergency exit;
(b) The person was, at the time of the theft, in possession of an item, article, implement, or device used, under circumstances evincing an intent to use or employ, or designed to overcome security systems including, but not limited to, lined bags or tag removers; or
(c) The person committed theft at three or more separate and distinct mercantile establishments within a one hundred eighty-day period.
(2) A person is guilty of retail theft with special circumstances in the first degree if the theft involved constitutes theft in the first degree. Retail theft with special circumstances in the first degree is a class B felony.
(3) A person is guilty of retail theft with special circumstances in the second degree if the theft involved constitutes theft in the second degree. Retail theft with special circumstances in the second degree is a class C felony.
(4) A person is guilty of retail theft with special circumstances in the third degree if the theft involved constitutes theft in the third degree. Retail theft with special circumstances in the third degree is a class C felony.
(5) For the purposes of this section, "special circumstances" means the particular aggravating circumstances described in subsection (1)(a) through (c) of this section.
(6)(a) A series of thefts committed by the same person from one or more mercantile establishments over a period of one hundred eighty days may be aggregated in one count and the sum of the value of all the property shall be the value considered in determining the degree of the retail theft with special circumstances involved. Thefts committed by the same person in different counties that have been aggregated in one county may be prosecuted in any county in which any one of the thefts occurred. In no case may an aggregated series of thefts, or a single theft that has been aggregated in one county, be prosecuted in more than one county.
(b) The mercantile establishment or establishments whose property is alleged to have been stolen may request that the charge be aggregated with other thefts of property about which the mercantile establishment or establishments is aware. In the event a request to aggregate the prosecution is declined, the mercantile establishment or establishments shall be promptly advised by the prosecuting jurisdiction making the decision to decline aggregating the prosecution of the decision and the reasons for the decision.
Notes:
Effective date—2013 c 153: "This act takes effect January 1, 2014." [ 2013 c 153 s 3.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2014–2024 · leading case: State v. Larson, 365 P.3d 740 (Wash. 2015).
State v. Larson, 365 P.3d 740 (Wash. 2015). “f 8 Former RCW 9A.56.360 elevates retail theft to a more serious offense under certain circumstances: (1) A person commits retail theft with extenuating circumstances if he or she commits theft of property from a mercantile establishment with one of the following extenuating…”
State v. Reeves, 336 P.3d 105 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “Language of Former RCW 9A.56.360 ¶10 We first examine the plain language of the phrase “item, article, implement, or device designed to overcome security systems” in former RCW 9A.”
State Of Washington v. Tycameron Lake, 466 P.3d 1152 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “350 was part of a bill that passed the legislature in 2006 that included former RCW 9A.56.360, which defined the crime of retail theft with special circumstances.”
Wilson v. Circle K Stores, Inc., 872 F.3d 1094 (10th Cir. 2017). “at 741 (emphasis added) (quoting Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.56.360(l)(b)). The court agreed with the State that “[t]he statutory language ‘including, but not limited to’ ” indicated that “lined bags and tag removers” were “illustrative examples rather than an exhaustive list.”
State v. Larson, 344 P.3d 244 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “Former RCW 9A.56.360. *907 ¶4 On November 8, Larson filed a Knapstad 2 motion, seeking dismissal of the charge.”
Schnitzer W., LLC v. City of Puyallup, Mun. Corp., 416 P.3d 1172 (Wash. 2018). “3d 740 (2015) (the illustrative examples in RCW 9A.56.360, which state in part, "The person was, at the time of the theft, in possession of an item, article, implement, or device designed to overcome security systems including, but not limited to, lined bags or tag removers,"…”
Brett Bass, Respondents/cross-app. v. City Of Edmonds, Apps./cross-resp., 481 P.3d 596 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “In Larson, the Supreme Court held that a criminal statute defining retail theft, former RCW 9A.56.360(1)(b), that included the phrase “including, but not limited to lined bags or tag removers” was intended to provide illustrative examples of devices designed to overcome security…”
State v. Larson (Wash. 2015). “2 Larson contends, as a matter of law, that wire cutters do not 1 RCW 9A.56.360 was amended, effective January 1, 2014, to replace all instances of "extenuating circumstances" with "special circumstances.”
State Of Washington v. Zachary S. Larson (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “" Former RCW 9A.56.360(1 )(b) (2013).1 After a bench trial resulted in his conviction, he appealed, arguing that because wire cutters do not constitute a device designed to overcome security systems, the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.”
State Of Washington v. S.g., 451 P.3d 726 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “In Larson, the Supreme Court held that a list of specific items "designed to overcome security systems" in a former version of RCW 9A.56.360 (retail theft), while illustrative, was nevertheless intended to limit the scope of the statute to things "similar in nature or…”
State of Washington v. Casey Wade, 380 P.3d 1288 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “RCW 9A.56.360(l)(b), (4). The only question presented by this appeal is whether the magnet group constituted an “article, implement, or device.”
In re: Motor Fuel Temperature (10th Cir. 2017). “at 741 (emphasis added) (quoting Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.56.360(1)(b)). The court agreed with the State that “[t]he statutory language ‘including, but not limited to’” indicated that “lined bags and tag removers” were “illustrative examples rather than an exhaustive list.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.56.360(1)(a) — 1 case
State Of Washington v. Tycameron Lake, 466 P.3d 1152 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “350 was part of a bill that passed the legislature in 2006 that included former RCW 9A.56.360, which defined the crime of retail theft with special circumstances.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.56.360(1)(b) — 6 cases
Brett Bass, Respondents/cross-app. v. City Of Edmonds, Apps./cross-resp., 481 P.3d 596 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “In Larson, the Supreme Court held that a criminal statute defining retail theft, former RCW 9A.56.360(1)(b), that included the phrase “including, but not limited to lined bags or tag removers” was intended to provide illustrative examples of devices designed to overcome security…”
State v. Larson (Wash. 2015). “2 Larson contends, as a matter of law, that wire cutters do not 1 RCW 9A.56.360 was amended, effective January 1, 2014, to replace all instances of "extenuating circumstances" with "special circumstances.”
State Of Washington v. Zachary S. Larson (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “" Former RCW 9A.56.360(1 )(b) (2013).1 After a bench trial resulted in his conviction, he appealed, arguing that because wire cutters do not constitute a device designed to overcome security systems, the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.”
In re: Motor Fuel Temperature (10th Cir. 2017). “at 741 (emphasis added) (quoting Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.56.360(1)(b)). The court agreed with the State that “[t]he statutory language ‘including, but not limited to’” indicated that “lined bags and tag removers” were “illustrative examples rather than an exhaustive list.”
In re: Motor Fuel Temperature (10th Cir. 2017).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.56.360(4) — 3 cases
State v. Larson, 365 P.3d 740 (Wash. 2015). “f 8 Former RCW 9A.56.360 elevates retail theft to a more serious offense under certain circumstances: (1) A person commits retail theft with extenuating circumstances if he or she commits theft of property from a mercantile establishment with one of the following extenuating…”
State Of Washington v. Angela Marie Jantzi (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Larson (Wash. 2015). “2 Larson contends, as a matter of law, that wire cutters do not 1 RCW 9A.56.360 was amended, effective January 1, 2014, to replace all instances of "extenuating circumstances" with "special circumstances.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.56.360(l)(b) — 6 cases
State v. Larson, 365 P.3d 740 (Wash. 2015). “f 8 Former RCW 9A.56.360 elevates retail theft to a more serious offense under certain circumstances: (1) A person commits retail theft with extenuating circumstances if he or she commits theft of property from a mercantile establishment with one of the following extenuating…”
State v. Reeves, 336 P.3d 105 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “Language of Former RCW 9A.56.360 ¶10 We first examine the plain language of the phrase “item, article, implement, or device designed to overcome security systems” in former RCW 9A.”
Wilson v. Circle K Stores, Inc., 872 F.3d 1094 (10th Cir. 2017). “at 741 (emphasis added) (quoting Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.56.360(l)(b)). The court agreed with the State that “[t]he statutory language ‘including, but not limited to’ ” indicated that “lined bags and tag removers” were “illustrative examples rather than an exhaustive list.”
State v. Larson, 344 P.3d 244 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “Former RCW 9A.56.360. *907 ¶4 On November 8, Larson filed a Knapstad 2 motion, seeking dismissal of the charge.”
State of Washington v. Casey Wade, 380 P.3d 1288 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “RCW 9A.56.360(l)(b), (4). The only question presented by this appeal is whether the magnet group constituted an “article, implement, or device.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.